From a.rosta@pmail.net Sat Feb 19 18:20:17 2000 X-Digest-Num: 369 Message-ID: <44114.369.2041.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 02:20:17 -0000 From: "And Rosta" Subject: RE: rapprochement > From: Invent Yourself > > On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, And Rosta wrote: > > > From: "And Rosta" > > > > > >From: Alex Leith > > > > > > > >I've been pondering a rapprochement between Loglan and Lojban, and Bob > > > >McIvor is thinking that way too. > > > > I do hope that Lojbanistan takes a proactive stance on this, more than > > just wishing Loglan good luck. As far as I am aware, there have been > > many IAL schisms, but never a reunification, so that would be a shining > > first. And the longer it is delayed, the more people will have a vested > > interest in there not being a reunification (because they won't want to > > do any extra learning). > > The history of Esperanto vs. Ido, while interesting, is relevant to almost > nobody. The context for that statement is that I am interested in the > relationship between Lojban and the outside world, and not that between > Lojban and the IAL community. Where I see relevance is that the history of IALs, which I take to include Loglan/Lojban, is one of schism and endless proposals of new schemes, always in a manner detrimental to achieving the goal of a thriving speech community. You can see that force at work in Lojban from people like me and Rex May. It's rather like the old political Left, calling on workers of the world to unite, but being itself ever more disunited. And when some united Left comes along, such as, say, the Bolsheviks post-1918, it was terribly alluring. [That's absolutely as far as the Bolshevism--Loglan analogy goes, I assure you!] > Bob promised the sanctity of baseline Lojban, and I refuse to learn even a > single cmavo beyond it! I and others have been trying to outline a scheme that would reunify the languages without you having to learn more than one or two cmavo (meaning "This is Lojban", "This is TLI Loglan"), and I suppose you could get away without learning those. The baseline would remain virtually intact; there would merely be a very minimal augmentation. Furthermore, the change would presumably have to be denied official status till whenever the five year moratorium on baseline changes elapses, though of course in the meantime the speech community could use it unofficially (or not use it). > Lojban is Loglan. It would be wonderful if the good minds from TLI joined > us and applied their years of wisdom to helping us grapple with the > advanced topics we have been discussing, such as the subjunctive, etc. Lojban is not classical TLI Loglan, of course. TLI Loglan is also Loglan. As I said in an earlier message, however much goodwill and mutual respect there is between the two communities, I think they're doomed to be rivals (e.g. in seeking to attract new speakers) unless some kind of reunification is achieved. --And.